Obama and his transferring of wealth is really more about those with just a little more than those in poverty pay more and give up their "wealth." The big corporations and unions giving millions to the DNC keep theirs.

1. All the bailouts and QE's have made the acquisition of REAL assets impossible for most Americans.
2. Under the Socialist Democrat policies of the last 5 years, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown increasingly larger.
3. Obamacare is a massive transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the corporations (and 1%).

Congratulations Blart (and others like him) for getting exactly what you voted for. You cannot say you weren't warned.

1. All the bailouts and QE's have made the acquisition of REAL assets impossible for most Americans.
2. Under the Socialist Democrat policies of the last 5 years, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown increasingly larger.
3. Obamacare is a massive transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the corporations (and 1%).

Congratulations Blart (and others like him) for getting exactly what you voted for. You cannot say you weren't warned.

I agree with point #1... And chance to run a side by side the income gap map, and a chart that shows the increase of finance as share of GDP?

1. All the bailouts and QE's have made the acquisition of REAL assets impossible for most Americans.

How?

Quote:

2. Under the Socialist Democrat policies of the last 5 years, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown increasingly larger.

Which new socialist policies are you speaking of? Can you name three of them, and how much they increased by, and how much this directly affected the wealth gap?

Here's a hint: there are no socialist policies from the last 5 years.

Quote:

3. Obamacare is a massive transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the corporations (and 1%).

By how much? Can I get a clear number on this? And your source?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're regurgitating rhetoric you've heard from right-wing sources. If you have actual numbers and evidence, I apologize for assuming otherwise and would love to see them.

In an interview on "Squawk Box," the founder of hedge fund Duquesne Capital said that the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing was inflating stocks and other assets held by wealthy investors like himself. But the price of making the rich richer will be paid by future generations.

"This is fantastic for every rich person," he said Thursday, a day after the Fed's stunning decision to delay tightening its monetary policy. "This is the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever."

"Who owns assets—the rich, the billionaires. You think Warren Buffett hates this stuff? You think I hate this stuff? I had a very good day yesterday."

Druckenmiller, whose net worth is estimated at more than $2 billion, said that the implication of the Fed's policy is that the rich will spend their wealth and create jobs—essentially betting on "trickle-down economics."

I didn't vote for Obama in this last election, but I've been seriously shocked at how wrong he has been on these issues. I don't think Bush or Romney could have done a much better job at catering to the desires of the rich and powerful to the exclusion of everybody else. Five years ago, the largest ponzi scheme in history destroyed our economy. The FBI found indications of widespread fraud. Number of indictments under Obama? 0. Instead, Obama created a new philosophy: Too big to fail. As the hedge fund manager above points out, Obama has turned into the biggest supply sider in America.

Secondly, you don't know who I voted for, and you have no clue who I campaigned for, because just like your football & political opinions, you rush to judgements without adequate evidence.

For the record, since I live in a non-swing state, I voted for Jill Stein. I campaigned for Elizabeth Warren (she's now doing a ****ing awesome job taking on the banks) and Alan Grayson (who did a wonderful job stopping a war on Syria) and they both won. If I lived in a swing state, I'd have held my nose and voted for Obama. Capitalism, imperialism, and environmental destruction with an embarrassed smile was much preferable to the bold-faced, unabashed capitalism & imperialism of Romney/Ryan.

Secondly, you don't know who I voted for, and you have no clue who I campaigned for, because just like your football & political opinions, you rush to judgements without adequate evidence.

For the record, I voted for Jill Stein and campaigned for Elizabeth Warren (she's now doing a ****ing awesome job taking on the banks) and Alan Grayson (who did a wonderful job stopping a war on Syria). If I lived in a swing state, I'd have held my nose and voted for Obama. Capitalism, imperialism, and environmental destruction with an embarrassed smile was much preferable to the bold-faced, unabashed capitalism & imperialism of Romney/Ryan.

It's funny that in your view widespread wealth disparity growth is driven by marginal cuts in welfare benefits (which don't really exist. We spend more on social welfare than ever before) But the insinuation doesn't pass even a basic economic sniff test. What is your graph saying? If we paid welfare recipients $240/month instead of $150, the wealth gap would meaningfully shrink? That wouldn't touch it.

The growth in wealth disparity is mostly a product of deindustrialization, and its impact on low and middle-class jobs. If you want the lower classes to catch up, they need decent work. Not a slightly larger federal check in the mail.

Does it matter to you how much more stuff people you don't know have.? Is life not fair?

The real problem is lack of industry and middle class opportunity. And that doesn't come via federal regulation. Although it can be ended by it.

The wealth gap matters because economic power fuels political power. As wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a tiny minority, our democracy is more and more undermined.

Perhaps more importantly wealth inequality leads, in the long term, to economic instability (i.e. what we're seeing now) -- especially in a consumption driven economy. As I oft repeat: doesn't matter now much money the "job creators" have if there is no one that can afford to give patronage to the businesses those "job creators" might create. So no businesses are created or expanded, and no new jobs are created.

The wealth gap matters because economic power fuels political power. As wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of a tiny minority, our democracy is more and more undermined.

Perhaps more importantly wealth inequality leads, in the long term, to economic instability (i.e. what we're seeing now) -- especially in a consumption driven economy. As I oft repeat: doesn't matter now much money the "job creators" have if there is no one that can afford to give patronage to the businesses those "job creators" might create. So no businesses are created or expanded, and no new jobs are created.